Hi,
Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com> writes:
Perhaps. If the US had offered to relocate all the Kurds, do you
think Iraq would have objected? I still think it's wrong to view the
situation in a simple us/them war mode kind of mentality -- both sides
are human, and both sides would be reasonable if they thought it was
going to benefit them.
<<
We don't have to violate their rights to stop them from advancing. If
they become violent, we may be forced into a self-defence mode, at
their loss. Whatever their goals are, it probably would have
<<
Their "goal" was to eliminate a political and ethnic minority (I am
speaking of the Kurds). It was not to reloacate, share or get along
with them. Gassing may be the method, killing is the goal. Is that
wording better?
>>
This is utterly unreasonable - I suppose we could have let Germany
March across Europe and the world, and stayed out of it beecause we
wouldn't want to violate any "German Soldiers" rights?
>>
<<
That is what you are saying here, it doesnt matter to you what the
pattern of behaviour is for a country - no matter how they act,
responding withg the military is the wrong option? Is this reasonable
and when this method has been tried, where are those countries now? In
order to have this view you have such an incredibly niave view of the
world as to make your opinion useless. You are not "lowering" yourself
to that level by fighting.
>>
Controversy equalizes fools and wise men and the fools know it.
Responding with the military on *offensive* is certainly the wrong option. A defensive stance can be justified, if no other, better, solution can be found. I am certain, however, that such a solution could almost always be found.
<<
Fighting is not a universal measuring stick. Fighting and making war
are not inherently wrong. By your argument, we dont need to go after
killers with police, we should just be able to ask them to kindly come
out and walk behind bars for us, maybe "Happy, Happy jail" messages
will work?". Thats not the way it works IRL.
>>
We do not need to go after killers with police -- we need to chase them instead with goodwill and messages of peace. The reason that cops never fire first (and I hear don't even carry guns in England) is that the purpose of a cop is not to subdue the enemy with force. The purpose of a cop is help those in trouble -- and, in any violent situation, both the victims and the aggressors need help, just in different ways.
<<
Thats exactly what you "want" it to be like - you think children
"should" be some way. It simply does not work like that in real life -
the first thing anyone understands is need and pain, usually related.
Its what teaches you to avoid the flames. If you have no understanding
at all, putting your hand in the flame takes but one quick lessen,
even for the most mindless.
>>
True. But a far better solution is merely holding one's hand close to the flame -- or passing it through real quick -- to convince yourself that holding it there would be painful. And a uniqely human solution is to become convinced of the danger of pain by rational argument -- which is both humanities profound strength and the source of some of our deepest problems.
On a different note, I think that "pain" and "teaching" are not
directly related;
"pain" and "conditioning" are much closer. It is fairly easy to
condition people (and animals) to avoid the pain, but you cannot teach
a human anything meaningful by applications of pain -- merely motivate
them to learn. It is my position that such motivation not only is
less effective than other methods available (especially intrinsic
motivation, from the individual themself), but that it also causes
coercion damage, resulting in entrenched theories (e.g. the much heard
"I can't do math") and a loss of creativity and motivation.
ERiC